News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.4K     0 

GO even built a parking lot at Square One bus terminal, even though it is already one of the busiest transit hubs in the GTA. How exactly this new parking lot fits into the LONG TERM picture, I don't know. But to me it seemed like GO was sending a big FU to MT. I mean really, if even the busiest transit terminal the 905 is not good enough not to have parking, then really we might as well call it quits and trash all transit service in the 905.
 
My request to you and others, think LONG TERM.

Thinking long term is what got the GTA to where it is today. Projects tucked away to be done later, only they are never brought back into focus. Now we have highways that are at and beyond capacity, as well as our transit systems. Infrastructure falling apart, as well as our transit. No quick way from the airport to downtown.

It's time to stop thinking long term, and start thinking NOW. What can we do now, and what needs to be done now.
 
Thinking long term is what got the GTA to where it is today. Projects tucked away to be done later, only they are never brought back into focus. Now we have highways that are at and beyond capacity, as well as our transit systems. Infrastructure falling apart, as well as our transit. No quick way from the airport to downtown.

It's time to stop thinking long term, and start thinking NOW. What can we do now, and what needs to be done now.

No no no.

That's called sweeping it under the rug. Putting it off for later.

Long term is doing something now as part of a bigger plan.
 
Had a looked at Burlington Parking Structure today when I was out there and not much has change in the few months.

Only 3/5 of the structure is full and this was at 1:30. There were empty spots out in the surface lots.

Even at 4:00pm it was still the same with a few more empty spots.

I guess everyone still parking outside have decided it's not worth the time trying to get out of the structure than sitting out in the weather.

When a 12 car train pull's in, the roads leading out of the lots is at gridlock as well the roads leaving away from it. This applies to all GO stations that I have seen to date.

If the new Wal-Mart at the Burlington station is an example of freeing up space for development by using a parking structure, you mild well keep expanding surface lots.
 
Had a looked at Burlington Parking Structure today when I was out there and not much has change in the few months.

Only 3/5 of the structure is full and this was at 1:30. There were empty spots out in the surface lots.

Even at 4:00pm it was still the same with a few more empty spots.

I guess everyone still parking outside have decided it's not worth the time trying to get out of the structure than sitting out in the weather.

When a 12 car train pull's in, the roads leading out of the lots is at gridlock as well the roads leaving away from it. This applies to all GO stations that I have seen to date.

If the new Wal-Mart at the Burlington station is an example of freeing up space for development by using a parking structure, you mild well keep expanding surface lots.

If a parking structure built at Burlington GO freed up enough space for a Wal-Mart, then its actually a good thing. Wal-Mart probably pays a lot of taxes, and many, many people welcome Wal-Mart with open arms (and wallets).
 
Long term is doing something now as part of a bigger plan.

And most people would agree that long term planning is what is needed. But when GO didn't put the latest announcement in the context of a much larger plan, is it a surprise that people reacted negatively? Big investments in parking structures really make it seem like go is operating according to status quo, business as usual principles. And given a lot of people, even beyond this forum, want something beyond GO's traditional service, it seems fair that they should be skeptical and concerned about the announcement.

Personally I don't see parking structures as being a bad thing. It might help attract more riders, and charging for spaces, even if it is a low fee, is a good way to generate more revenue. But I am also giving GO the benefit of the doubt that real changes are just around the corner and this is just one of many major announcements that we will see over the next year or two.
 
I think we have to keep in mind who's took the lead on this announcement. Since it was the Premier's office making the announcement, they were the ones who got to control the message. In this economy short term gain is what sells, so I don't blame the Premier's office for focusing on that. All i'm saying is that the absence of evidence of a long term plan is not evidence that a long term plan is absent. I'm not going to deny that the message was an incomplete one, but I do think that the context has been well established.
 
All I'm saying is that the absence of evidence of a long term plan is not evidence that a long term plan is absent. I'm not going to deny that the message was an incomplete one, but I do think that the context has been well established.

I would agree. I think when you look at some of the projects GO has undertaken, like service to Barrie, adding more tracks here and there and such, and look at what it is working, such as service to Guelph and Kitchener, and the not very sexy but very critical projects like grade separations it has made some very important investments and plans too date. I do think it is unfair to expect things to instantly change over night, after all, it will take a long time to create the kind of network that will be able to support regional rail service, and a great deal of money. But being critical is just as important too and when politicians or others say things that amount to 'just trust me and things will be fine' questions should be raised. After all, it is challenges to the status quo that leads to progress and I can't think of anything that better represents 'old school' GO thinking then adding more parking.
 
I fully agree with you that criticism challenges the status quo. But, I believe that there's a difference between constructive criticism and childish name-calling that so often happens.
 
Had a looked at Burlington Parking Structure today when I was out there and not much has change in the few months.

Only 3/5 of the structure is full and this was at 1:30. There were empty spots out in the surface lots.

Even at 4:00pm it was still the same with a few more empty spots.

I guess everyone still parking outside have decided it's not worth the time trying to get out of the structure than sitting out in the weather.

When a 12 car train pull's in, the roads leading out of the lots is at gridlock as well the roads leaving away from it. This applies to all GO stations that I have seen to date.

If the new Wal-Mart at the Burlington station is an example of freeing up space for development by using a parking structure, you mild well keep expanding surface lots.
I have a really hard time understanding you.

Mild well keep expanding surface lots? Might as well? *shrugs*
 
If a parking structure built at Burlington GO freed up enough space for a Wal-Mart, then its actually a good thing. Wal-Mart probably pays a lot of taxes, and many, many people welcome Wal-Mart with open arms (and wallets).

Wasn't the Wal-Mart store something the city lost/settled at the OMB... they didn't want a big box store by their transit node IIRC
 
As usual, Barber's called it for what it is...

PUBLIC TRANSIT
Parking-lots plan paved with chutzpah
JOHN BARBER
February 19, 2009


How on God's good, formerly green earth can anyone spend $175-million on parking lots?

I understand all too well why Prime Minister Stephen Harper might aspire to do so - it's a long, sad story - and I understand why reed-in-the-wind Premier Dalton McGuinty might go along with him. What I don't understand is how one actually does it.

The asphalt order alone will strain local resources past the breaking point, likely requiring emergency infusions from Alberta. But where will we get all the extra bulldozers needed to spread it around? The mind boggles at such outlandish ambitions.

Would that the mind boggled at the chutzpah of politicians who claim to be promoting transit while in fact they subsidize free parking in the suburbs. But such absurdities are common coin in the Ruritanian backwater (Ottawa) that dreams them up.

It would be more reassuring if the leaders knew enough to suppress the parking news while focusing on sensible investments that will actually reduce rather than increase the number of cars on local roads. That way, they would at least appear to have acknowledged the arrival of the 21st century. Instead, they pushed all that transit stuff aside and staged a photo-op to announce $175-million worth of parking lots.

Without even blushing.

The easiest way to explain such behaviour is to consider the local political landscape. We have a prime minister who has given up hope of winning seats in Toronto and a premier who wins them all automatically. The big guy is vindictive and the little guy blandly impartial. Sound policy is not an option.

The federal government's sudden interest in GO Transit parking lots mirrors its concern for Union Station, where the GO lines converge, and which it promised to "revitalize" in its recent budget. While nominally based in Toronto, both projects are designed to serve the suburban constituency Mr. Harper is most keen to attract - especially after having botched his Quebec gambit - while offering nothing to transit-dependent Torontonians who will never vote for him.

It's so clever, so stupid, so Harper - a strategy to stimulate a national economy while systematically ignoring its nerve centre.

This week, Mr. Harper wasn't even able to spit out the name "David Miller" when asked why his government has yet to contribute a nickel to transit initiatives the mayor and council have identified as priorities.

"All mayors, with the exception of the one you mentioned, received our announcements positively," Mr. Harper answered, ignoring Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion, among other local leaders, who echoed Mayor Miller's criticism of the federal infrastructure program as overly bureaucratic and underperforming.

Their comments on that issue are virtually identical. And now Mr. Harper has proved them right.

Given the anti-Toronto antagonism that animates Ottawa, even favoured Union Station stands to suffer. All it needs is money to finance a thoroughly developed renovation plan. But that plan was made in Toronto, and cutting ribbons at Union Station will require sharing a stage with "the one you mentioned."

Union Station is sufficiently important to suburban voters that it will likely receive the promised support - if not in the form the city expects or prefers. But nothing is easy - or even sensible - in a world where free parking is called public transit.

jbarber@globeandmail.com
 
Last edited:
Wasn't the Wal-Mart store something the city lost/settled at the OMB... they didn't want a big box store by their transit node IIRC

Yes, this was truly a dark outcome. If ever there was a corridor in Burlington ripe for high density development it was this one where the Wal Mart was built. It was a long-fought struggle, and remains a cautionary tale of what is truly wrong with the system. Burlington was designated a city for density development and this area in particular sits right on the border of 'older' urban Burlington and the major transit lines (QEW/Go Line) beyond which lays the vast sprawl of suburban Burlington. The area in question, from Lakeshore to the south to the train/highway corridor to the north, could and should frame a major node of GTA development easily accessible to Toronto and Hamilton. No place for a big box store!
 

Back
Top